ITAT held that the delay in filing appeal was caused by genuine reasons, including the taxpayer’s age and misunderstanding of online procedures. The case was remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Tribunal held that assessment proceedings were invalid as notices were sent to a non-functional email ID, denying assessee a fair hearing. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that TDS need not be deducted on year-end expense provisions where payees are unidentifiable and liability crystallizes later. Case remanded for factual verification.
ITAT Mumbai held that consideration from a redevelopment agreement is taxable in hands of individual members, not co-operative housing society. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹4.97 crore addition, confirming that society acted merely as a representative.
ITAT Mumbai held that National Payments Corporation of India carries out activities which has been recognized as charitable under category of advancement of object for general public utility. Accordingly, revisionary order u/s. 263 quashed as issue already dealt in detail by AO.
ITAT Mumbai upheld relief granted by CIT(A) to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, holding that the AO failed to record satisfaction before rejecting the assessee’s suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found the additional disallowance of ₹4.11 crore excessive and unsupported by evidence.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed where the assessee’s claim is based on a genuine interpretation of Section 44 and Rule 5 and involves a debatable issue.
The ITAT held that the PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 to substitute the AO’s plausible view, ruling that a business disallowance under Section 37(1) does not automatically become deemed income under Section 69C.
ITAT Mumbai held that delay in filing Form 10B does not invalidate a trust’s exemption claim if the form is submitted before assessment completion and the error is rectified.
ITAT Mumbai held that when sales and stock figures are accepted, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus. Only the profit element at 3% is taxable, following consistent judicial precedent.
